Same-sex marriage
The law in various parts of the world United States In the United States, the decision on weather to allow same-sex marriages has been left to the states. Currently, only Massachusetts allows same-sex marriages. Vermont and Connecticut allow Civil Unions, while Maine, New Jersey, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia have some spousal-like rights for same-sex couples. Canada Same-sex marriage is currently the law of the land in Canada, following decisions in cases brought before provincial courts, followed by a decision by the Supreme Court, followed by a bill passed in Parliament in 2005 under the government in power at the time. The short summary would be that all court decisions found that denying marriage to same-sex couples would violate rights guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court's decision invited the government to recognize this concretely with legislation. The bill subsequently did so. Religious concerns were raised during these events. Religious freedoms are protected under the Charter, and some religious groups object to same-sex marriage. These concerns were finessed by the assurance that no religious authority would be required to perform a same-sex marriage ceremony, if it did not wish to do so. Thus, any same-sex couple may get married, but they might not be able to have their marriage ceremony performed in certain places of worship. The newly-elected government has been promising to re-visit the same-sex marriage issue in Parliament sometime during the fall. Wikipedia has an excellent review at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada . United Kingdom Civil Partnerships Placeholder text, to be made more specific, describing the recently introduced institution of Civil Partnership which is open to two individuals of the same sex Switzerland Registrated Partnerships In 2005, 58% of the Swiss people aproved the new law on "registrated partnerships" (Partnerschaftsgesetz) in a public vote that introduces marriage-like partnerships for same-sex couples. On January 1st, 2007, the law will come into effect. Marriage remains reserved for couples of different sex. The law brings the same rights and responsibilities as marriages, though there are some exceptions: * the family names of the partners remain unchanged, though, in practice, it is allowed to use the partners name instead or in addition even in legal transactions. * the couple is not allowed to adopt children The parlimentary web site on the topic (german and french only): http://www.parlament.ch/homepage/do-archiv/do-partnerschaft.htm In favor of Gay Marriage Separation of Church and State Marriage is a legal issue. The state recognizes marriage as a legal partnership in which two individuals enter, and grants them certain rights and privileges that go beyond those which unmarried individuals have. For instance, in the case of the death of one partner in a marriage, even without a will the estate of the deceased is usually automatically willed to the living partner. The definition of Marriage as purely religious is incomplete. This denies the reality of entirely secular marriages performed by Justices of the Peace. It also denies the presence of the many legal benefits afforded to married couples denied to un-married ones. In some marriages, the only true religious involvement is the performance of a ceremony to indicate the marriage is recognized by a church. Marriage may have started as a purely religious agreement, but it's current reality is much broader. Equality Over 1,100 Rights and Responsibilities are afforded to heterosexual couples through marriage. Simple rights such as hospital visitation, and healthcare coverage are easily available to heterosexual couples through marriage, but unavailable for same sex couples. Denying same-sex couples marriage essentially creates a group of second-class without access to the same rights as heterosexual couples. Freedom and Individual Liberty The United States was founded on the principles of Freedom, and Personal Liberty. Allowing same-sex marriages would be extending upon GLBT people the freedom to choose a life partner and be respected by the State. A same-sex marriage would not limit the freedom of heterosexual individuals, in any way. Limiting marriage to a heterosexual definition would be limiting the freedoms of a minority group of people. This is the classic example of the ‘tyranny of the majority’, which is the enemy of Democracy. :That's incorrect. Marriage is a State issue, not a personal or individual issue. People have the right to do anything they want, but "marriage" would not exist without the state, therefore you can't say that the States take a freedom from the citizens since that's not a "freedom" from the beginning, it's a State sponsored institution. What you could claim is discrimination, not lack of freedom, but that's a different discussion. -- Blackdog 19:09, 6 July 2006 (UTC) :If there is really a separation of church and state, why can't we have gay marriage? The marriage given by the state would be secular, no? For people of faith, their definition of marriage may be different from the states, and they should have the right not to recognize these relationships if they wish (within the boundries of the law, of course). They should have a right to have a relationship that is recognized by the state, at least. -- Anphanax 19:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Distorted view of GLBT People and Culture GLBT persons who participate in pride parades and other festivities are often considered to be representative for the entire GLBT community. This makes GLBT people seem extravagant and careless, characteristics which are difficult to unite with a serious marriage. It must be noted, however, many of GLBT people are not eager to express their sexuality. They consider it to be a personal issue. Such people could establish a very robust marriage and be very good at child rearing. These people do not fit a distorted view of GLBT people and are often not considered in debates. This type of discourse I believe forces advocates of GLBT rights into a rather conservative line of argument whereby GLBT people are made to prove their ‘normality’ or ‘respectability’ in order to assert their entitlement to equal rights. Straight people do not have to conform to any particular moral standard or norm in order to be entitled to be married. It is not the ‘sameness’ of GLBT people that should entitle them to marry whomever they please, it is their citizenship and equality as human beings which can not and should not be negated through the participation in parades or celebration of identity and sexuality.--Lampshade 16:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC) The Fallacy of 'Protecting' Traditional Marriage A common tactic used by those opposed to equal rights for GLBT citizens is to claim that they are 'protecting' traditional marriage. Allowing same-sex marriage would in no way limit existing, or future, heterosexual marriages. Heterosexual marriages would be as legal as they are today. Allowing gay marriage would simply mean that more citizens would have access to the rights and protections that are currently only provided to heterosexual couples. Requests for Editing this Page Please feel free to refine or strengthen any argument that you agree with. If a point has yet to be addressed, feel free to create a new topic. If a point is brought up that you do not agree with, attempt to disprove it on the other side's argument. If we delete the agreements we do not agree with, this cannot succeed as a forum for free speech. Countering an argument you do not agree with in the same paragraph is not fair to the opposing argument. Respect every one in their right to formulate their own argument. Respect truly free speech. Against Gay Marriage Natural Order The intrinsically heterosexual nature of mammalian procreation Counterpoint Can someone please cite this correctly? Thanks From the American Psychological Association's "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality" (http://www.apa.org/topics/orientation.html): Yes, credible research indicates that sexual orientation is a choice, and there are numerous documented cases of individuals choosing to change their sexual orientation. http://www.familyresearchinst.org/FRI_EduPamphlet5.html :That pamphlet bothers me when it emphasizes that "societies that accept homosexuality have more of it and those that disapprove of and punish it have considerably less of it". This is junk psychology. Societies that disapprove of homosexuality aren't going to have as high of a rate of reporting. And while the behavior may be diminished, the inclinations may remain, repressed in favor of heterosexual impulses, or even in favor of asexuality, even if there is emotional damage. -Jjensenii 18:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Does it matter whether sexual orientation is a choice? When discussing the sexual orientation of people, there are myriad possibilities. People can not only be heterosexual or homosexual, but also be pedophiliac or zoophilic for example. Modern psychologists agree that this is also not by choice and definitely not voluntarily changeable. Promoting gay marriage simply because it is not a voluntary choice to be gay would also mean promoting (consensual?) relations between adults and children by the same argument. The involuntariness of homosexuality per se can therefore not be a valid argument and other societal factors have to be taken into account. That's a strawman argument if I ever heard one. The difference is children can not legally consent to sexual relations because they are not prepared to enter into such relationships. Mature adults should be free to choose another mature adult as their partner. Religious Imperative The need or otherwise of aligning secular law with the moral code of a majority religion Counterpoint C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity discusses marriage, and his argument - which I agree with so am (poorly) reproducing here - is that there should be a distinction made between civil marriages and religious marriages. With high divorce rate as a primary indicator, marriages as implemented by the government today are, in fact, civil marriages. We do not - and can be argued never have - held people to the oath of "till death do us part". In this sense, the religious side is just for show. Lewis asks for a large distinction to be made between religious marriages, specifically Christian, and civil ones. He sees no reason that civil marriages are held up to a Christian standard, and by making this distinction we can not only more effectively separate church and state, but also clarify exactly our intentions when getting married. --Bubaflub 10:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC) A first step in differentiating the two (civil vs. religious marriages) would be naming. Civil marriages could simply be called "civil unions," providing all the legal benefits of marriage, without any religious connotations. --Midian 16:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC) A Third Option A third possibility supported by a smaller group is the removal of marriage benefits from the law altogether. Marriage would be left as a religious or personal bond between whichever people choose to recognize it, but there would be no state or federal recognition of marriage. Giving of power of attorney and whatever contracts that marriage currently implies could be entered into explicitly by any two people (as they are now). This is probably not a practical option considering the widespread respect and influence that marriage has in our culture, but it may be useful to include in discussion to remember that conferring legal status to marriage is far from inevitable. Our society has decided that we want marriage to have legal status, so we also have to decide how to handle that so as not to confer unfair advantage to certain people. :If someone wants to make a point for gay marriage they have to: :# make a point why there's a need for "marriage" in general :# prove that that need holds if we extend the "marriage" meaning to gay relationships. States Rights The Constitution nowhere grants the Federal government the power to regulate marriage, so with no amendment whatsoever it is already possible for individual states to do what they want about gay marriage. People who feel threatened by gay marriage are free to live in a state that does not allow it, and people who want it are free to live in a state that allows it. Rights By State New York In a 4-2 decision, the New York Court of Appeals said that the state's marriage law is constitutional, and clearly limits marriage to a union between a man and a woman. Judge Robert Smith said, "Any change in the law would have to come from the state Legislature." Civil Unions only Marriage is a very personal thing, and government should not be in the business of defining it. By defining all unions as civil unions, there is no longer a threat to the religious definition of marriage. Nor is there a threat of the government's enshrining discrimination by calling some people's unions "marriage" and others' unions something else -- people are free to call their own union whatever they like. This is frequently called "separation of bedroom and state." Party Platforms United States Republicans We strongly support President Bush’s call for a Constitutional amendment that fully protects marriage, and we believe that neither federal nor state judges nor bureaucrats should force states to recognize other living arrangements as equivalent to marriage. We believe, and the social science confirms, that the well-being of children is best accomplished in the environment of the home, nurtured by their mother and father anchored by the bonds of marriage. We further believe that legal recognition and the accompanying benefits afforded couples should be preserved for that unique and special union of one man and one woman which has historically been called marriage. Source: 2004 Republican Party Platform: A Safer World and a More Hopeful America, p. 83 Libertarians From the National Libertarian Party Web Sitehttp://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#sexurigh: The Issue: Government has presumed to decide acceptability over sexual practices in personal relationships, imposing a particular code of moral and social values and displacing personal choice in such matters. The Principle: Adults have the right to private choice in consensual sexual activity. Solutions: We advocate an end to all government attempts to dictate, prohibit, control or encourage any private lifestyle, living arrangement or contractual relationship. Transitional Action: We would repeal existing laws and policies intended to condemn, affirm, encourage or deny sexual lifestyles, or any set of attitudes about such lifestyles. Democrats We support full inclusion of gay and lesbian families in the life of our nation and seek equal responsibilities, benefits, and protections for these families. In our country, marriage has been defined at the state level for 200 years, and we believe it should continue to be defined there. We repudiate President Bush's divisive effort to politicize the Constitution by pursuing a "Federal Marriage Amendment." Our goal is to bring Americans together, not drive them apart. Source: Democratic Party Platform for America, 2004, p. 42 Category:Civil rights